Hansard

Another candidate speaks.

We have consistently said that we have no problem with the Scottish Government developing a new approach to funding capital infrastructure and no objection to the creation of the Scottish Futures Trust. We also have no problem with the aggregation of projects, better contracting within the public sector or, if it is attainable, lower-cost finance. We know from the business case for the SFT that it is pursuing a number—14 to be precise—of objectives. One of those is the non-profit-distributing model of PPP/PFI, so it is not exactly new and it may not be improved, either.

We do not share with the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats an obsession with PPP, just as we do not share with the SNP an aversion to it. Our approach is simple and straightforward: the only issue should be the delivery of best value for taxpayers. If the SFT provides better value than PPP, it should be used. If it does not, it should not be used. If PFI/PPP represents better value, it should be available and used where it is the best option. I would have thought that that would be uncontroversial; sadly for the taxpayer, it is not.

It is clear that, in the current financial situation, there is less interest from private sector funders for PPP or any new variant. We cannot be sure for how long that will continue, but it should give those on all sides of the argument pause for thought.

Labour's amendment mentions the concerns of the building industry, the trade unions and the business community. It is true that the unions want the SFT to be scrapped, but they also want PPP to be scrapped.

The building industry is not calling for the SFT to be scrapped. The Scottish Building Federation, which Mr Whitton mentioned, has made it clear that its problem is with what happens in the meantime before the SFT is finalised. CBI Scotland does not want the SFT to be scrapped either; its concern is the same as the SBF's.

Once again, the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats are out of step with business and public opinion, but in step with each other. It is about time they showed some consistency. Today, the Liberal Democrats state in their amendment that the SFT is

"nothing more than a … quango".

Barely five months ago, Liam McArthur issued a press release in which he said that it was all his idea.

The Labour Party's amendment states that the Government has

"failed to deliver a workable method of funding",

but in May Andy Kerr was claiming the credit for having invented it.

Labour's amendment prays in aid the condemnation of the SFT by the trade unions. Andy Kerr is right: they hate it because they see it as being PPP in all but name. PFI offends them—although not enough to stop various trade union pension funds investing in it—because profit to anyone other than trade unions appears to be a problem.

We have no objection to equity profits in PPP schemes, and if the non-profit-distributing model of PPP delivers better value for the taxpayer, it will over time squeeze out other versions, because no public body will sign any other form of deal.

Judging by the First Minister's comments earlier today, his primary concern is to reduce the level of private profit. The key for us is not the level of profit to the private sector, but the cost to the taxpayer, the quality of the service, the level of flexibility and future proofing. If the SFT beats other models on those fronts, that will be fine, but if it does not, ideology should not prevent options such as traditional PPP from being used.

In our previous debate on the SFT, we expressed concerns about the impact of refinancing provisions in current versions of NPD schemes. I understand that the Government agreed to look into the matter, but it is about time we got some answers on what precisely it will do to make the refinancing provisions of less concern to potential bidders.

The United Kingdom Government has recently updated its guidance to increase the share of refinancing gains that can be retained by the public sector. That guidance also affects projects in Scotland. Commenting on that guidance, the Business Services Association said that it would

"substantially reduce the attractiveness of being involved with PFI deals and they come at a time of serious economic challenge and testing of confidence."

In addition, we are told that the margins on PPP deals are rising, making them more expensive. Coupled with the potential issues arising from moving those deals on balance sheet, PFI and PPP are less attractive than they were. That is another reason why we think the Labour and Liberal Democrat amendments, which would rule out the SFT, are wrong. However, it is also another reason why the SNP needs to demonstrate in what ways, if at all, the SFT is better.

It is clear that the construction industry believes that there have been delays and that new projects would have come on stream if the Government had not taken a policy decision to prevent them. Whether or not that is true, no one should believe that the level of PPP projects would have been maintained if the previous Executive had continued in office. How many PPP deals would have been signed in the national health service, with its proposed zero per cent increase in spending from the Labour Party, or in transport, which was also to receive no additional funding?

What will happen when all PPP schemes come on balance sheet? Will it be cost neutral? Would the previous Executive have taken a different view from the current one? At what point will Government, the NHS or a council decide that it has reached the ceiling for the proportion of its budget that it wants to commit for a generation?

There are big questions about the future of PFI and PPP, but there are also big questions about the future of the SFT. However, the only question that members need ask is this: why should public bodies not be able to choose the method of procurement and funding that they consider most appropriate? Why is ideology more important than infrastructure? I leave it to those who are against a choice to argue their case.

I move amendment S3M.2862.1, to leave out from "notes the steps" to "public interest".